Smith v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
611 F.2d 1039 · 1980
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Wilson v. Seiter (1991), Ramos v. Lamm (1980)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Procunier v. Martinez · Hutto v. Finney · Johnson v. Avery
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the federal courts have the power, and the duty, to make their intervention [into operation of prisons] effective”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inadequate funding will not excuse the perpetuation of unconstitutional conditions of confinement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court having found the Defendant, Mike Sullivan. Sheriff, in civil contempt as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on this day, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant, Mike Sullivan. Sheriff, be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, or his designated authorized representative, for a period of two (2) days and twelve (12) hours, and that the Defendant, be assessed a fine of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE AND NO/100 ($375.00) DOLLARS, said fine to be paid into the Registry of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The sentence of fine and imprisonment will be suspended on the condition that the inmate population of the El Paso County Jail not again exceed 500 between the dates of March 10, 1978 and September 10, 1978. Additionally, if the provision of this Court’s Order of October 19, 1977 requiring the inmate population of the El Paso County Jail to be no greater than 500, is ultimately held, on final appeal, to be outside the scope of this Court’s authority, then the fíne assessed and imprisonment imposed shall be totally and permanently withdrawn. If this Court’s Order of October 19, 1977 is upheld on appeal, the fine will be due and the term of imprisonment will begin at noon on the 10th day following this Court’s receipt of the mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, provided Defendant’s contempt has not been purged by compliance with this Court’s Order through ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Sullivan
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.